Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

NPR on New Nuclear Build

Today from 2:20 to 3:00 pm U.S. EST, EPRI Vice President Dave Modeen and Arjun Makhijani from IEER will appear on Talk of the Nation's Science Friday program with Ira Flatow. They are slated to discuss new nuclear plants and related issues. You should be able to access it live via American University radio at 88.5 FM. You can get that live audio via the Web. The audio of the program will also be posted on the program's Web site at 6:00 pm U.S. EST. For that link, click here.

Thanks to my colleague Trish Conrad for the tip.

UPDATE: For those of you not up on advanced fuel-cycle technologies that were discussed during the program, click here for a policy brief from NEI. And here's an editorial from the Voice of America. And here's another NPR segment from earlier this week about new nuclear build in the U.K.

Why is it OK for fossil fuel plants to externalize without penalty the costs and consequences of their pollution (listed below), but the miniscule amount of tritium that a nuke may accidently release is big news?

"The risk of lung cancer death went up by 8% for every 10 micrograms of fine particles in a cubic meter (about 3 feet by 3 feet) of air, the study found. Heart disease deaths went up 6%, and deaths from all causes 4%, for every such increase."

"A 1994 study by Pope estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Americans died yearly from the effects of outdoor particulate air pollution."

"Carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter have all been linked with increased hospitalizations and deaths caused by heart disease, he says."

"One recent analysis was based on data from 90 large U.S. cities - showing air pollution caused a 21% increased death rate overall, with 31% of increased deaths from heart and lung disease, Brook reports. This and other studies show that air pollution may accelerate the development of atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries -- the underlying process that causes heart disease."

"Air pollution may be to blame for up to a sixth of cot deaths, it emerged today."

"Researchers found that on average, 115 of every 100,000 babies died before reaching the age of one. The international research team focused on infants known to have died from respiratory illnesses or suffered cot death."

"They obtained government data on the level of soot, dirt and dust in the atmosphere in each area. They calculated that 16 per cent of the cot deaths were caused by pollution."

-----

So one then wonders how many innocent human lives - especially babies - must be sacrificed because of anti-nuclear fear and hysteria.

The tritium release from Braidwood, Byron and Dresden has neither killed nor injured ANYONE. However, even as I write, innocent human beings are dying from the after-effects of burning fossil fuel, all of which use of nuclear energy can obviate.

WRT steam pollution, it would be better classified as water vapor pollution (if there is such a thing). It is merely water vapor at around 100-120F that is released into the atmosphere. With ~100 nuclear plants in the US and ~500 worldwide (including US), I cannot imagine that the "greenhouse" effects are even considered relevant. Now when one compares water vapor "pollution" from a nuclear plant to exhaust from a coal plant, then a person must consider releases of material that actually erode the ozone layer resulting in "greenhouse" effects (mercury, sulphur and other nasties). Since ~75% of all electrical generation worldwide is from coal plants, one can conclude that nuclear water vapor emission (which is simply heat transfer - or delta T - and not chemical) is not relevant. Now to be fair, most countries are taking steps to curb coal-fired emissions...however, IMHO the many years of coal-fired emissions have already taken a toll on the atmosphere.

Like a dog on a bone, NIRS is really trying to push the tritium issue aren't they? Yes, Exelon should have done a better job prior to now, but we're talking about very small amounts of a naturally occurring isotope that is a weak beta emitter. The EPA safe drinking water limit for tritium in a home is 0.02 microcuries per liter. Drinking a half gallon a day of that water would yield a dose equal to eating about one apple a day. The few areas where samples indicated a level above the EPA limit are now under control to protect water supplies.

And NONE of the samples exceeded the NRC limit for environmental release of tritium. That limit is 1 microcurie per liter. Drinking a half gallon of that water everyday would give me less dose than I'll receive flying in airplanes this year.

Compare that to the pollutants and hazardous materials other energy and industrial sources generate, with or without penalty, and the scare tactics NIRS is employing just look silly.

What's a watchdog supposed to do but gnaw on a good bone, apparently a bone of contention to more than just NIRS.

As you all know, the Exelon Braidwood spill in '98 was a mere 6.75 million gallons of tritiated water that was left out on the ground by the company to evaporate.

That much water also left the site as contaminated runoff and seeped into the water table. Behind the Braidwood High School the ground water is well above EPA limits. Cobalt 60 was also in evidence off site on Smiley Road in ditch water.

The unravelling is just starting and not just around Braidwood, Dresden, Bryon, Salem, Indian Point, Prairie Island, now more recently Palo Verde but around all the sites.

The nuclear industry should start announcing its radioactive spills to the state and county authorities and be required to publish such events in the local newspapers as they occur, not wait ten years to get caught.

Its the least you all can do as a courtesy so parents can decide for themselves whether or not to keep their kids out of any more of your wayward radioactive wading ponds.

I'm curious if any of you have a problem with public disclosure and prompt notification of ground water contamination?

What's a watchdog supposed to do but gnaw on a good bone, apparently a bone of contention to more than just NIRS.

As you all know, the Exelon Braidwood spill in '98 was a mere 6.75 million gallons of tritiated water that was left out on the ground by the company to evaporate.

That much water also left the site as contaminated runoff and seeped into the water table. Behind the Braidwood High School the ground water is well above EPA limits. Cobalt 60 was also in evidence off site on Smiley Road in ditch water.

The unravelling is just starting and not just around Braidwood, Dresden, Bryon, Salem, Indian Point, Prairie Island, now more recently Palo Verde but around all the sites.

The nuclear industry should start announcing its radioactive spills to the state and county authorities and be required to publish such events in the local newspapers as they occur, not wait ten years to get caught.

Its the least you all can do as a courtesy so parents can decide for themselves whether or not to keep their kids out of any more of your wayward radioactive wading ponds.

I'm curious if any of you have a problem with public disclosure and prompt notification of ground water contamination?

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…